One of the main contradictions that make me stand oblivious is the western hand-shaking with oppressive regimes in the Middle East.

The reason always repeated for this support from the western side is that the oppressive regimes are a de-facto situation that must be interacted with if the west ever wanted to stay "social".

But Arab countries and the Middle East have been exporting immigrants like crazy to the west, and its regimes blocking the path on the rest to die slowly inside the walls of its regimes.

Isn't that a contradiction for the human-rights doctrines? secular morals and "it's good to be good" are a lie to the western foreign policy; in theory; but it's non-existent in the western foreign policy if not "manipulated to the core" when dealing with the Middle East is at the table.


Why can't the western populations realize that the more the relationships and the good treatment with the dictators of the Middle East go, the more immigrants fleeing from there would stack up drowning western countries, economical interests of west will get demolished and the hate to the west will increase more and more?

Forcing sanctions on the Arab regimes and taking their heads to trial, stop selling them weapons is the only way for peace.

Contradictory to popular belief, the "West" isn't the overseer or protector of the world. It's just another nation (or bunch of nations, depending on your perspective) who are out to do what's best for themselves alone, just like all other nations out there.

Quote:Why don't the dictator regimes be punished by the west?

I'll give you a hint - it rhymes with 'fetroleum'.

Boru

"Damned if we do, damned if we don't."

(March 7, 2019 at 6:26 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: Contradictory to popular belief, the "West" isn't the overseer or protector of the world. It's just another nation (or bunch of nations, depending on your perspective) who are out to do what's best for themselves alone, just like all other nations out there.

The nuclear power of the western states is the support of the theory of it being in control; the security council of the UN is composed of 5 super powers; 3 of them are western.

So the world is ruled by a western majority; even if China/Russia's votes were enough to cancel what the council votes on. Still 3 of the VETOs are in the hands of the west.

Quote: the security council of the UN is composed of 5 super powers; 3 of them are western.

Fifteen members, 6 of which are non-Western. Only one nation on the SC is a superpower.

Boru

(March 7, 2019 at 8:02 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: The nuclear power of the western states is the support of the theory of it being in control; the security council of the UN is composed of 5 super powers; 3 of them are western.

So the world is ruled by a western majority; even if China/Russia's votes were enough to cancel what the council votes on. Still 3 of the VETOs are in the hands of the west.

Just because someone has the strength to bully you doesn't mean they will take responsibility of your well being, nor is it wise to expect them to.

@AtlasS33

There is apolitical philosophy, to which I subscribe. It's called 'realpolitik", it argues that politics are about pragmatism above all..

Neither domestic nor foreign policy of any government is a based on moral principle. Policy is always based on the perceived best interest of the country concerned to a political party, to an electorate, to personal ambition.

Wars are never started on the basis of moral principle, except of course by the poor dumb bastards who do the actual dying.

There is apparently a psycho in charge of Saudi Arabia. No country will interfere unless it is in their perceived best interest. Right now the US has need of Saudi Arabia, and does not need the conflict with other Arab states should the US interfere in Saudi Arabia. It's an internal problem ,and up to the Saudis to resolve, or not.

"Realpolitik (from German: real; "realistic", "practical", or "actual"; and Politik; "politics", German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtiːk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as "pragmatism" in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies". The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are perceived as coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.[1] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

Hey...we could always invade and depose the current ruler, installing our own puppet.  

Can I get confirmation on that, Atlas?  Is that what you want us to do? When the world asks us by what right or authority we did that..I'll say "Atlas invited us".

Why is it that people who demand that we DO SOMETHING always want that something to be what they prefer?